Present: Chairman Smith, Vice-Chairman Snow, Commissioner Collins, Commissioner Greenberg, & Commissioner Stein

                    Ex-Officio: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Lynch,  Minutes Clerk Flanagan

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission on any subject not on the agenda may do so under this portion of the agenda. Please note that the Planning Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion, or take action on, items that do not appear on this agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to Town Staff for consideration and/or placed on a future Planning Commission agenda. Please limit your comments to no more than three (3) minutes.

COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Staff Update

Commission Information Items

1.    Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 14, 2003 Adopted as Submitted 5-0

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. 86-A MAIN STREET: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A THERAPEUTIC YOGA STUDIO TO BE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE; Pamela R. Schuyler-Cowens, Applicant; Edward Zelinsky and Barbara Abrams, Property Owners; Assessor Parcel No. 059-102-20 Approved 5-0

3. 15 GILMARTIN DRIVE: AMENDMENT TO TIBURON SHORES PRECISE PLAN TO AMEND A BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR PURPOSES OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; Susan Sakmar, Property Owner and Applicant, Assessor Parcel No. 055-253-16 Continued to a Date Uncertain 5-0

4. 78 MAIN STREET: TIME EXTENSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY; Edward Zelinsky and Barbara Abrams, Property Owners; Arch Wireless, Applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 59-102-20 Approved 5-0

ADJOURNMENT 9:25 PM

General Plan Update: Review of Draft revised Land Use Element (June)

Tiburon Glen Project: Public hearing on revised Draft EIR (June 14)

1620-1632 Tiburon Boulevard: Renewal of CUP for wireless communication facility (August 13) a052803

1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California

Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Smith, Commissioners Collins, Snow, Greenberg_, and Stein

Absent: None

Staff: Planning Manager Watrous, Associate Planner Lynch and Minutes Clerk Morales

PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:

There were none.

COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING

Planning Manager Watrous noted that the EIR for the Tiburon Glen Precise Development Plan has been released and will be considered at a special meeting on July 14, 2003.

Chair Commissioner Stein reminded the Commission that a workshop with the Commission and the Town Council would be held on May 29, 2003, at 6:00 p.m.

1. MINUTES OF MAY 14, 2003

Changes include:

Page 2, last paragraph, ". . . with respect to enforcing that the secondary unit is at the owner's principal residence."

Page 3, first paragraph, fourth line – replace "challenge" with "challenging".

Page 3, third paragraph, seventh line – "to minimize the view impacts created by the. . ."

Page 4, fourth paragraph – "but questioned the interpretation that suggests that the new . . ."

Page 8, second paragraph ". . . fees appear to be too high percentage of cost for street work, although percentage is less so on drainage work".

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. 86-A MAIN STREET: CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A THERAPEUTIC YOGA STUDIO TO BE LOCATED IN AN EXISTING RETAIL SPACE; Pamela R. Schuyler-Cowens, Applicant; Edward Zelinsky and Barbara Abrams, Property Owners; Assessor Parcel No. 059-102-20

Assistant Planner Lynch stated that the applicant is proposing to locate a yoga studio in a space which was previously used for a retail business. Because of the proposed change in use, a conditional use permit is required. The applicant proposes to hold classes between 6:45 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. per appointment for a total of approximately 36 hours per week. Parking will be fulfilled by existing facilities along Main Street and in the parking lot behind the business. However, given the size of the space, it is not anticipated that the proposed use will not exceed the parking needs of the previous use. He stated that the proposed use would be consistent with the Village Commercial zone which requires that uses be resident-serving, as well as consistent with the General Plan.

Noting Finding E, Commissioner Stein stated that the proposed use could be considered a health studio and asked whether that would raise any concerns. Associate Planner Lynch stated that because the proposed use would not include high-energy classes with amplified music, there would be no problem.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Associate Planner Lynch made the following comments: 1) the fire code capacity for this space is not known; 2) the applicant has not indicated whether there would be other employees; and 3) no showers have been proposed, but would be unlikely due to the size of the space. Associate Planner Lynch further stated that concerns regarding the impacts a larger scale similar use, i.e., a gym, could be mitigated by tying the use permit specifically to the yoga studio.

The public comment period was opened.

Pamela Schuyler-Cowens, applicant, responded to Commissioners' questions in the following manner:

The applicant would be the only instructor teaching, but she had no objection in limiting the number of employees.

Because of the nature of the use, no truck deliveries and/or amplified use will be necessary.

There will be no window coverings.

Classes will only be offered on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; no classes would be held on weekends.

There will be 30 minute breaks between classes.

The public comment period was closed.

Chair Smith found the proposed yoga studio to be a benign use, which was consistent with the conditional uses allowed under the current zoning district. He had no significant concerns with the project.

Commissioner Stein agreed that the proposed use was benign and would vote to approve it. However, he expressed concern that if this type of use was replicated elsewhere in the downtown area it would not be healthy because it would not create the vibrant, economic vitality of the downtown area which was being sought. Therefore, he urged the Commission to be very clear that multiplicity of these uses was not supported.

Commissioner Greenberg supported the proposed use because it was resident-serving and would bring people to the downtown area who otherwise would not come.

Commissioner Collins agreed that this should be an isolated situation. He suggested specifically conditioning the use permit for this particular use only.

Commissioner Snow found the size of the studio modest, and the weekday operations appropriate. He felt the use was town-serving, and fits in with the downtown area.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to add the following restrictions as conditions of approval for the subject use permit:

There shall be no more than eight members in group classes.

Only one group class shall be held at a time.

After 9:00 a.m. there shall be 20 minute breaks in between classes in order to avoid parking problems.

No audible sound outside the studio.

There shall be no more than three employees.

The use permit shall allow only a yoga studio, and any change in use shall require a new use permit.

The Commission also discussed the issue of window covers, with the majority agreeing not to impose any such limitations on this use.

M/S Collins/Greenberg (5-0) to approve the draft resolution approving a conditional Use Permit for a therapeutic yoga studio.

In response to Commissioner Snow, Associate Planner Lynch stated that it was standard procedure that once all costs related to the processing of the subject application are tallied, an applicant is refunded any balance of the application fees collected.

3. 15 GILMARTIN DRIVE: AMENDMENT TO TIBURON SHORES PRECISE PLAN TO AMEND A BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR PURPOSES OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; Susan Sakmar, Property Owner and Applicant, Assessor Parcel No. 055-253-16

Planning Manager Watrous stated that when the Tiburon Shores Precise Plan was adopted in 1985, there was minimal discussion regarding specific location of building envelopes or potential impacts to be avoided. The applicants are proposing a 390 square-foot addition, which would extend outside the building envelope. The current house has 4,460 square feet of floor area and a 540 square foot garage. The proposed addition would exceed the floor area ratio for the site by 153 square feet. He noted that there are two other homes in the area which also exceed the floor area ratio for their respective lots, but both were approved prior to 1991 when there was no floor area requirement in the Town’s zoning ordinance.

Planning Manager Watrous reiterated the fact that at the time the plan was approved, careful consideration had been given to the layout of homes, but that there was no record of specific deliberation regarding the location of building envelopes and potential impacts to neighboring properties. Commissioner Stein asked whether there was precedent for granting a building envelope expansion which allowed the floor area ratio to be exceeded. Planning Manager Watrous responded that, to his knowledge, there had been no such applications approved.

The public comment period was opened.

Mohamad Sadrieh, applicants' architect, explained that since he originally designed the house for a previous owner, it was not designed to meet the current owners' family needs and that is why the proposed addition was necessary. He felt that the location of the proposed addition was the most logical because it is off the family room. He stated that building an addition within the envelope would result in a triangular room. Although the floor area ratio would be exceeded by 153 square feet, he said that the overall floor area would still be consistent in size with neighboring homes. He stated that the project was supported by the adjacent neighbor. However, he pointed out that the issue before the commission was the amendment to the building envelope, not the issue of a floor area exception, which would be dealt with through the Design Review process.

Commissioner Stein expressed concern that approving the building envelope amendment would send a strong suggestion that the Commission supported the floor area exception in concept. Mr. Sadrieh stated that should the building envelope amendment be approved, the Commission could forward either its support or concerns to the Design Review Board for their deliberation.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Mr. Sadrieh stated that the addition would be 10-12 feet from the property line. Mr. Sadrieh also noted that although the height of the new building would be higher than the current play structure, it would be two and a half feet lower than the existing building because of the topography of the property and the slope of the roof.

Susan Sakmar, property owner, expanded on the need of the proposed addition in order to meet their family needs; the need to locate the addition as proposed; and the design of the structure. She then noted that the neighbor that would be most potentially impacted (19 Gilmartin Drive) was very supportive of the project and would prefer to see the proposed room instead of the play structure. She concluded by stating that the play structure would be relocated.

In response to Commissioner Greenberg, Planning Manager Watrous stated that most play structures were not subject to any permits from the Town.

The public comment period was closed.

Commissioner Greenberg stated that she was not concerned with the floor area exception, but was concerned with the proposed location. She felt that the addition would be too close to the residence on the adjacent property, with only vegetation for a visual barrier. She noted that the houses in this area were very long, and could begin to visually run into each other. She said that it was pretty clear that the application was inconsistent with the zoning ordinance.

Chair Smith said that he was not particularly concerned with the building envelope expansion, but had reservations about the floor area exception. While he understood the need for more space for a growing family, he noted that people come and go, but the community will have to live with the addition long after the current owners are gone. He felt that he could conceivably support the building envelope amendment, but only by sending a clear message to the Design Review Board that it would be difficult to make the findings necessary for the floor area exception.

Commissioner Stein stated that it is not intellectually honest to disassociate this application from the Design Review process needed for the building addition. He found it hard to approve the amended building envelope with a final outcome that does not make sense. He felt that the distance of the addition from the property line could be a setback problem.

Commissioner Snow stated that on the surface, this seems like an easy request. However, he was wrestling with the perceived need for the addition, and had difficulty with this application as a long-term decision.

Commissioner Collins noted that the addition would extend nine feet toward the property line. He felt that approval of the building envelope amendment would be a tacit approval of the floor area exception. Although he recognized that the project would not impact the neighbors, he had a problem with setting a precedent for similar expansions.

The public comment period was reopened.

Kirk Hobbs, property owner, reiterated the fact that the building envelope expansion request and the floor area exception two separate issues, and that the only issue before the Commission was the building envelope expansion.

Mr. Sadrieh requested a continuance. Chair Smith explained that a continuance was definitely a possibility, but noted that the Commission has clearly stated its position.

M/S Snow/Stein (5-0) to continue this matter as requested by the applicant to a date uncertain.

4. 78 MAIN STREET: TIME EXTENSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AUTHORIZING THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY; Edward Zelinsky and Barbara Abrams, Property Owners; Arch Wireless, Applicant; Assessor Parcel No. 59-102-20

Planning Manager Watrous stated that the applicants were requesting extension of a use permit to allow the continued operation of an existing wireless communications facility which was originally approved in 1997 then extended for five years in 1998. He stated that the facility is not particularly visible and no complaints have been received by the Town regarding this facility. Since the antennas have a lower power output than the antenna originally approved for the facility, the applicants have noted that FCC regulations exempt such facilities from requirements to prepare further radiation frequency reports.

Commissioner Greenberg expressed concern that all study results are based on estimates of the type of equipment used, but that no actual studies have been conducted nor physical measurements taken.

Chair Smith noted that even though no actual studies have been conducted, the Commission did not have the authority to require that the operator do so because the facility was exempted by the FCC because of the low power output of the antennas.

The public comment period was opened.

Theresa Heine, representing Arch Wireless, summarized the background history of the facility. She stated that the original radiation study results were based on the specifications of the model of the equipment which were not actually installed. She noted that the installed antennas have a much lower power output, and are therefore categorically exempt from further requirements for radiation frequency testing.

Commissioner Greenberg asked what would it take to do an actual physical test output, but Ms. Heine reiterated the fact that said measurement was not a requirement from FCC.

Allan Heine, field engineer for Arch Wireless, described how such physical measurements would be taken, but indicated that these measurements could become complicated and costly depending on the location and surroundings. He noted that the antennas had a three-foot accessibility area with a warning sign, and were only accessible by ladder.

Commissioner Stein asked Staff to find out whether financial security requirements originally imposed on this use permit had been met.

The public comment period was closed.

Chair Smith expressed frustration with the FCC regulations, and noted that local jurisdictions did not have the authority to require updated physical studies, but rather simply had to have faith or hope that operators voluntarily agree to conduct such studies.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to add the following conditions of approval for the subject use permit:

Require maintenance of the tree to ensure proper screening of the facility. Should the tree die, the use permit shall be reconsidered to determine adequate replacement.

Require that financial security be filed with the Town for maintenance and/or dismantling of the facility.

If FCC standards change to allow for the preparation of radiation frequency reports for such facilities, the operator shall prepare a report based on the actual operations of the facility.

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business, Chair Smith adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.

______________________________

PAUL SMITH, CHAIR

Tiburon Planning Commission

 ATTEST:

 ____________________________________

DANIEL WATROUS, SECRETARY